## To His Excellency

[Fragment]

...before you. I managed to read it only once. It requires revision, the plan for which I did not have time to sketch out.

Your Lenin

Written in Geneva

First printed in 1928. Printed from the manuscript
in Lenin Miscellany VII

## TO G. V. PLEKHANOV

14. XI. 03.

Highly esteemed Georgy Valentinovich!

My wife wrote to you today in detail about business matters, sending new materials.

I have undertaken my agrarian article. I hope to finish it, approximately, by Tuesday.

Devoted to you, V. Ulyanov

Sent from Geneva to Lausanne
First printed in 1928
in the collection "Group 'Liberation of Labor'" No. 6

Printed from the manuscript

## TO G. V. PLEKHANOV

18/XI. 03.

Highly esteemed Georgy Valentinovich!

I apologize sincerely for being a day late with the article: I was unwell yesterday and in general it is terribly difficult to work these days.

The article has stretched out, so it is necessary to divide it into 2 parts; in the 2nd part I will analyze Novobranskii in detail and draw conclusions.

I consider a signature under my own article necessary and I am adopting a pseudonym, since before announcing otherwise to you, it probably would be awkward for you.

In the issue of *Iskra* with the announcement about the Congress, I request that you also place my accompanying statement herewith. Of course, in the event that complete peace is established in the party (which I hope for) and if you find it necessary, I could, among other conditions for peace, discuss also the non-publication of such a statement.

Devoted to you, N. Lenin

Written in Geneva (local)

First printed incompletely
in 1904 in the book: L. Martov.
"Struggle Against 'Martial Law'"
in the Russian Social-Democratic
Workers' Party." Geneva

Printed from the manuscript

Printed in full in 1928
in Lenin Miscellany VII

## TO YU. O. MARTOV

My Statement to Martov
(approximately, from memory, reconstructed)

I fully join comrade Martov's desire, expressed through comrade Gans, to eliminate the personal aspect of our conflict by means of an exchange of statements, and on my part I propose the following statement.

I did not doubt and do not doubt the conscientiousness and sincerity of Martov. Since Martov declares that, having become acquainted with my project for the selection of 2 triplets and approving this project, he himself personally always considered it necessary to expand the original editorial triplet, then I do not doubt this myself and do not permit from anyone whatsoever any doubts as to the truthfulness of Martov. I would be very glad to convince myself that the accusations he has raised against me were based on a misunderstanding.

29. XI. 03.

N. Lenin

Written in Geneva (local)

First printed in 1904
in the book: V. V. Borovsky. "Commentary
on the Protocols of the Second
Congress of the Foreign League of Russian
Revolutionary Social-Democrats,"
Geneva

Printed from the manuscript

## TO F. I. DANU

Copy of Response

To the address of Potresov (for Danu)

2. XII. 03.

"Esteemed comrade! The elimination of the personal conflict between myself and Martov could be certified in an appendix to the protocols of the League Congress. On my part, I would of course be only delighted by this. But no one has either a formal or a moral right to shorten anything whatsoever in the congress protocols, to remove something from the description of what actually occurred.

With comradely greetings, N. Lenin"

Written in Geneva (local)

First printed in 1929
in Lenin Miscellany X

Printed from the manuscript

## V. I. LENIN

Response:
3/XII. 03.

## TO V. I. ZASULICH

To the Editorial Office of the Central Organ

12. XII. 03.

Esteemed comrade! I would of course prefer publication of the letter in No. 53; I need only proofs for stylistic corrections. In *Iskra* I intend to write about Novobranskii and about Meshchersky's "Friendly Speeches"; in *Zarya*—about the agrarian question.

With s.-d. greetings, N. Lenin

Written in Geneva (local)

First printed in 1929. Printed from the manuscript
in Lenin Miscellany X

## TO V. I. ZASULICH

3/XII.

Esteemed comrade! I forgot to inform you that I request all my articles to be signed N. Lenin, and not "Contributor."

If the letter to the editorial office or the agrarian article must be postponed, then I request that the "letter" be placed in No. 53 and the agrarian article postponed.

With s.-d. greetings, Lenin

Written December 3, 1903
in Geneva (local)

First printed in 1929. Printed from the manuscript
in Lenin Miscellany X

## TO THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP

Dear friends! A new political position has become fully apparent since No. 53 of *Iskra*. It is obvious that the quintet in the Central Organ wants to hound both Lenin (right up to slander about throwing out southern workers from the party, right up to base insinuations about Shveitser) and the CC, and the entire majority. Plekhanov directly says that the quintet of the Central Organ is not afraid of any Central Committee whatsoever. The attack on the CC is coming both here and in Russia (a letter from Petersburg about Martyn's trip). The question is posed starkly. If we lose time and the slogan for struggle, then complete defeat is inevitable, firstly) as a result of the desperate struggle of the quintet in *Iskra*, secondly) as a result of the failures of our people in Russia. There is only one salvation—a Congress. Its slogan: struggle against disorganizers. Only on this slogan can we catch the Martovites, attract the broad masses, and save the position. In my opinion, the only possible plan is as follows: say nothing to anyone about the Congress for now, complete secrecy. Move all forces, everything and everyone, into the committees and circuits. Struggle for peace, for the cessation of disorganization, for subordination to the Central Committee. Strengthen the committees with your own people with all your might. Catch the Martovites and southern workers on disorganization with all your might, with documents, with resolutions against disorganizers; resolutions from the committees should fly to the Central Organ. Then push people into the shaky committees. The conquest of committees in the name of the slogan: against disorganization—such is the principal task. A Congress is necessary no later than January, therefore get moving more energetically; we too will move all our forces. The goal of the Congress: to strengthen the CC and the Soviet, and perhaps also the Central Organ by means of either a triplet (in the event we should manage to wrest Plekhanov, which is unlikely) or a sextet, into which I would enter given honorable peace for us. Worst case: their Central Organ, our CC and Soviet.

I repeat: either complete defeat (the Central Organ will hound us) or immediate preparation for a Congress. It must be prepared first secretly over the course of about one month, then in three weeks gather demands from the committees and convene the Congress. Again and again: this is the only salvation.

Written December 10, 1903
Sent from Geneva to Kiev

First printed in 1929
in Lenin Miscellany X

Printed from the manuscript

## TO THE EDITORIAL OFFICE OF *ISKRA*

To the Editorial Office of the Central Organ

12. XII. 03.

I, as representative of the CC, received today from comrade Martov a query as to whether it is possible to publish concerning talks of the CC with the Geneva opposition. I consider it possible, and I earnestly request the comrades in the editorial office of the Central Organ to weigh once more the question of good peace in the party.

It is not yet too late to secure this peace, it is not yet too late to withhold from public knowledge and from enemies the details of the split and talk of dishonorableness and false lists—talk which will probably be used even by the *Moscow Gazette*. I guarantee that the majority will eagerly agree to consign all this filth to oblivion, on condition of securing good peace in the party.

Everything now depends on the editorial office of the Central Organ, which includes representatives of the former opposition, who rejected the CC's offer of peace from 25. XI. 03. I ask you, comrades, to take into account that the CC has since made two further voluntary concessions, having advised comrade Ru to resign and having attempted to settle matters "amicably" with the League.

Meanwhile, the boycott of the CC, agitation against it, and disorganization of practical work in Russia continue. We are written to from Russia that the opposition is creating "hell" there. We have the most positive information that agents of the minority systematically continue disorganizing work, traveling to committees. We are written to from Petersburg about a trip there for this purpose by Martyn. It has come to the point where the opposition is setting up its own transport and, through Dana, offering it to the CC half!

I consider it my duty before the party to request one last time that the editorial office of the Central Organ persuade the opposition to sign a good peace on the basis of sincere recognition by both sides of both centers and the cessation of mutual strife, which makes any joint work impossible.

Written in Geneva (local)

First printed in 1929. Printed from the manuscript
in Lenin Miscellany X

## TO N. E. VILONOV

Dear comrade! I was very glad to receive your letter, because here, abroad, we hear too little of frank and independent voices from those engaged in work on the ground. For a foreign social-democratic writer it is extremely important to exchange views more frequently with advanced workers who are active in Russia, and your account of how our dissensions are reflected in the committees was extraordinarily interesting to me. I may even print your letter on occasion.

It is impossible to answer your questions in one letter, because a detailed account of the majority and minority would take up a whole book. I have now printed separately a "Letter to the Editorial Office of *Iskra* (Why I Left the Editorial Office?)"—there I recount briefly what we disagreed about and try to show how incorrectly the matter was presented in No. 53 of *Iskra* (beginning with No. 53, the editorial office consists of four representatives of the minority and also Plekhanov). I hope that this letter (a small printed sheet of 8 pages) will soon reach your hands, because it has already been taken to Russia and probably will not be difficult to distribute.

I repeat: in this letter the matter is set forth very briefly. It is impossible to set it forth in more detail now, until the protocols of the party Congress and the League Congress are published (in No. 53 of *Iskra* it was announced that the protocols of both these congresses will be published in full and very soon. I know that the protocols of the party Congress will come out as a whole book of three hundred pages and more; almost 300 pages are ready already; probably in a week, or at most two, this book will be out). It may well be that another pamphlet will have to be written when all these protocols come out.

I personally view the matter as follows: the split was caused first and foremost and above all by dissatisfaction with the personal composition of the centers (the Central Organ and the Central Committee). The minority wanted confirmation of the old sextet in the Central Organ, but the Congress selected three of the six, evidently finding them more suitable for political leadership. In the same way the minority was defeated on the question of the composition of the CC, i.e., the Congress selected not those whom the minority wanted.

The dissatisfied minority thereupon began to inflate very minor disagreements, boycott the centers, gather supporters for itself, and even prepare a split in the party (here there are very persistent rumors and probably reliable ones that they have already decided to found and begun gathering material for their own newspaper under the name "Kramola." It is probably no accident that the feuilleton in No. 53 of *Iskra* is set in a typeface that does not exist even in the party print-shop!).

Plekhanov decided to co-opt them into the editorial office to avoid a split, and wrote an article "What Is Not To Be Done" in No. 52 of *Iskra*. I left the editorial office after No. 51 because I considered this revision of the Congress under the influence of foreign scandals to be incorrect. But, of course, I personally did not want to interfere with peace, if peace is possible, and therefore (not considering it possible for myself to work in a sextet) I left the editorial office, yet not refusing to contribute.

The minority (or opposition) wants to push its people forcibly also into the Central Committee. The Central Committee agreed for peace to take two—but the minority was still not satisfied and continues to spread bad rumors about the CC, such as that it is incapable. In my opinion, this is the most outrageous violation of discipline and party duty. And besides, it is all slander, because the CC was selected by the Congress from people for whom the majority of the "*Iskra* Organization" had spoken. And the "*Iskra* Organization," of course, knew better than anyone else who was suitable for this important role. The Central Committee was selected at the Congress from three people—all three had long been members of the "*Iskra* Organization"; two of them were members of the Organizational Committee; the third was invited into the Organizational Committee but did not enter by his own personal wish, though he worked long at the OK on general party business. This means that the most reliable and tested people were selected for the CC, and I consider it a most improper procedure to shout about their "incapability" when it is the minority itself that prevents the CC from working. All accusations against the CC (concerning formalism, bureaucratism, etc.) are nothing but spiteful inventions devoid of any foundation.

Needless to say, I fully share your opinion about how improper it is to cry out against centralism and against the Congress from the side of people who earlier said something different and are dissatisfied that on one particular question the Congress did not do as they wished. Instead of recognizing their error, these people are now disorganizing the party! In my opinion, Russian comrades should decisively rise up against any disorganization and insist that the decisions of the Congress be carried out, that work not be hindered by squabbles over who should be in the Central Organ and in the CC. The foreign squabbles of literateurs and all sorts of other bigshots (whom you perhaps too harshly call directly intriguers) will only become harmless to the party when the Russian committee activists and leaders are more independent and are able to firmly demand that what their representatives decide at the party Congress be carried out.

Regarding the relation of the Central Organ to the Central Committee, you are entirely right that one must not give a decisive advantage to either one for all time. The Congress itself, in my view, should separately decide this question each time. And now according to the statute above the Central Organ and above the CC stands the Soviet of the party. And in the Soviet there are 2 members from the Central Organ and two from the Central Committee. The fifth was selected by the Congress. This means the Congress itself decided who should be given the advantage this time. Stories about how we wanted to suppress the Russian CC with the foreign Central Organ are pure slander, without a word of truth in them. When Plekhanov and I were in the editorial office, we even had three Russian social-democrats in the Soviet and only two foreigners. But the Martovites now have it the other way around!—judge by this how true their words are!

I press your hand firmly and very much request that you inform me whether you received this letter, whether you read my letter to the editorial office and Nos. 52 and 53 of *Iskra*, and how in general things stand now in your committee.

With comradely greetings, Lenin